CppCon 2026

Python's Global Interpreter Lock, which determines which single thread can execute native Python code and call C API functions, simplifies writing multithreaded code. By default, the most popular C++ bindings to this API, pybind11 and Cython, implicitly enables the GIL by default. However, sticking with this execution model leaves out extra performance afforded by modern multicore CPUs with hyperthreading, as automatic locking and unlocking of the GIL does not scale well with thread counts, especially in performance-sensitive workloads.

The newfangled free-threaded interpreter promises salvation when running either pure Python code or with compiled extensions. General multithreading rules apply (prefer thread-local variables, using locks to prevent simultaneous access of shared data), but when dealing with projects containing compiled extensions that directly or indirectly interface with Python's C API, more porting rules also apply.

Key porting tips, including projects using the Limited API, include: port native code away from C API functions that avoid borrowed references because they aren't thread-safe; modify unit tests to catch concurrency bugs arising from assuming the presence of the GIL; and extend CI coverage of Python interpreters both for testing and to build free-threaded compatible wheels.

Tooling Track sessions are sponsored by Optiver.

In CPython 3.14, we introduced an alternative interpreter implementation. This implementation used [[musttail]] , an experimental C/C++ feature that tells the compiler to enforce tail calls. Against the previous interpreter using computed gotos/switch-case, the new interpreter style shows 2%--15% performance improvement (i.e. geometric mean running time), and is more resilient against certain types of compiler bugs. This feature is already supported by Clang, GCC, and MSVC, and is also the center of a draft proposal targeting C++29. In this talk, I’ll cover the story of getting this feature into the Python interpreter, our collaboration with compiler developers, and the potential wider impact on the C++ community. I’ll also cover interesting use cases of this feature other than for writing interpreters, such as for automatically generating a simple Just in Time (JIT) compiler.

Tooling Track sessions are sponsored by Optiver.

Production C++ code often hides small but deeply complex algorithms inside layers of engineering: APIs, lifetimes, error handling, integration, logging, and glue code. We test classes and systems, but rarely the algorithm itself in isolation.

Off-by-one errors and broken or missing invariants can survive extensive pre-production testing. Line coverage does not imply branch coverage. Branch coverage does not imply coverage of algorithmic corner cases. Testing through a wide public API often obscures the mathematical structure of the problem, making subtle bugs difficult to discover through multiple layers of abstraction.

This talk explores how to extract an "algorithmic core" from a larger component. Its correctness is fundamentally mathematical and largely language-agnostic rather than C++-specific.

Using examples such as substring matching, topological sorting variations, and lazy evaluation on trees, we will examine how problem corner cases differ from implementation corner cases, and how easily some of them are skipped.

We will discuss:

• Recognizing when an algorithm is entangled with boilerplate
• Extracting core logic without introducing accidental complexity
• What it takes to test algorithmic code in isolation
• Raising the level of abstraction to make reasoning easier without merely relocating complexity
• Using LLMs to assist in exploring and validating implementations
• Gradual rollout and comparison of competing implementations

Notifiers are a critical synchronization primitive in task-parallel programming systems such as Intel TBB and Taskflow, responsible for efficiently sleeping and waking worker threads as tasks become unavailable and available over and over again, directly impacting scheduler throughput and latency. Correctness here is non-negotiable: a single missed wakeup can significantly hamper the performance of an entire program. Yet writing strong unit tests for notifiers is notoriously difficult, because the bugs they target, lost wakeups, spurious wakes, race conditions, are timing-dependent, non-deterministic, and often only surface under specific thread interleavings that are hard to force reliably.

The problem is compounded in practice. Notifier implementations evolve constantly: small algorithmic tweaks, memory ordering changes, and refactors across systems demand a fresh round of carefully constructed tests. This is tedious, expertise-heavy work that takes a lot of time and engineering effort. In this talk, we explore using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the generation of the unit tests for notifiers. Specifically, we will demonstrate how LLM-generated tests, guided by proper prompts can systematically stress the two-phase wait protocol across Notifiers in Taskflow. We will show this in a widely used Notifier implemented in Taskflow. We are able to find an undiscovered bug that has been existing in the project.

Benchmarks shouldn't live in a different world from tests. Most C++ projects already use Google Test, but the moment performance enters the picture, developers reach for separate tools, separate workflows, and ad-hoc timing loops that don't survive contact with CI. This talk argues for a different default: treat performance measurements as first-class tests. They are written in the same harness, run in the same suite, and fail the same builds.

Using a real C++23 framework built on top of Google Test, the session shows what that looks like in practice. Semantic macros distinguish throughput, latency, and contention tests; built-in statistical analysis tracks medians, percentiles, and coefficient of variation. Adaptive thresholds scale with payload size, so tiny operations and multi-megabyte workloads aren't held to the same stability expectations.

Once benchmarking lives inside the test framework, the rest of the performance toolchain follows. Five CPU profiler backends drop in behind a single --profile flag: perf, gperftools, bpftrace, RAPL, and callgrind. Attaching a memory profile to a test prints bandwidth, efficiency, and a CPU-bound or memory-bound classification with no extra code. The same harness extends to CUDA through a fluent kernel builder that captures launch configuration, achieved occupancy, transfer overhead, multi-GPU scaling efficiency, and thermal throttling. Nsight Compute drops in through the same --profile flag.

The payoff is CI integration that's nearly automatic. A companion CLI tool compares baseline and candidate runs, applies statistical thresholds, posts markdown reports on pull requests, and fails the build on regressions. The result is a single workflow for performance verification that scales from a developer's laptop to a CI runner to a Jetson on a workbench, across hardware ranging from x86 to ARM to RISC-V.

Tooling Track sessions are sponsored by Optiver.

Years ago while working on a service that would be deployed in Kubernetes, we decided to use the simplest possible TCP based healthcheck. Not because TCP was the right choice, but because implementing a simple HTTP endpoint was more code than it was worth. For our Go services the equivalent HTTP endpoint was only a couple of lines. In fact, we eventually ended up replacing our TCP endpoint with a small Go wrapper around our C++ service.

The Go standard library has done a great job at designing a very ergonomic HTTP library. C++ now has all the right building blocks to express the same design concepts: coroutines, concepts, std::expected, std::jthread. The question is, do these patterns transfer from Go to C++? How do we evaluate the effectiveness of the resulting design?

In this talk I will present a small HTTP library inspired by Go's net/http, built with the tools available in C++23. To evaluate the resulting design I will draw on ideas from Felienne Hermans' The Programmer's Brain and the principle, from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, that API design is language design.

Along the way we'll see which patterns transfer cleanly, which need translation, and why telling the difference is a skill worth developing even if you only work with C++.